@article{Morin2011,
	Abstract = {Naturalistic accounts of culture, based on evolutionary psychology and theories of cultural evolution, can deal with the meaning of public symbols. There have been, indeed, several interesting proposals to naturalize the study of signs and their meaning. Kockelman' paper---Biosemiosis, technocognition and sociogenesis---provides such a proposal. It draws on two theoretical traditions: the semiotic study of natural signs (Peirce 1868) and the selectionist account of signals proposed by Ruth Millikan (1984). We feel the pull of both approaches, but we fundamentally disagree with the way they account for human communication. We argue that Gricean theories of communication provide a better account of interpretation and communication.},
	Author = {Morin, Olivier and Heintz, Christophe},
	Journal = {Current Anthropology},
	Keywords = {cultural evolution, communication},
	Number = {5},
	Pages = {732-733},
	Title = {{The Specificity of Human Communication Eludes Semiotic Theories}},
	Volume = {52},
	Year = {2011}}

{"_id":"MwNC3aDivexbdCytj","bibbaseid":"morin-heintz-thespecificityofhumancommunicationeludessemiotictheories-2011","author_short":["Morin, O.","Heintz, C."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","abstract":"Naturalistic accounts of culture, based on evolutionary psychology and theories of cultural evolution, can deal with the meaning of public symbols. There have been, indeed, several interesting proposals to naturalize the study of signs and their meaning. Kockelman' paper—Biosemiosis, technocognition and sociogenesis—provides such a proposal. It draws on two theoretical traditions: the semiotic study of natural signs (Peirce 1868) and the selectionist account of signals proposed by Ruth Millikan (1984). We feel the pull of both approaches, but we fundamentally disagree with the way they account for human communication. We argue that Gricean theories of communication provide a better account of interpretation and communication.","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Morin"],"firstnames":["Olivier"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Heintz"],"firstnames":["Christophe"],"suffixes":[]}],"journal":"Current Anthropology","keywords":"cultural evolution, communication","number":"5","pages":"732-733","title":"The Specificity of Human Communication Eludes Semiotic Theories","volume":"52","year":"2011","bibtex":"@article{Morin2011,\n\tAbstract = {Naturalistic accounts of culture, based on evolutionary psychology and theories of cultural evolution, can deal with the meaning of public symbols. There have been, indeed, several interesting proposals to naturalize the study of signs and their meaning. Kockelman' paper---Biosemiosis, technocognition and sociogenesis---provides such a proposal. It draws on two theoretical traditions: the semiotic study of natural signs (Peirce 1868) and the selectionist account of signals proposed by Ruth Millikan (1984). We feel the pull of both approaches, but we fundamentally disagree with the way they account for human communication. We argue that Gricean theories of communication provide a better account of interpretation and communication.},\n\tAuthor = {Morin, Olivier and Heintz, Christophe},\n\tJournal = {Current Anthropology},\n\tKeywords = {cultural evolution, communication},\n\tNumber = {5},\n\tPages = {732-733},\n\tTitle = {{The Specificity of Human Communication Eludes Semiotic Theories}},\n\tVolume = {52},\n\tYear = {2011}}\n\n","author_short":["Morin, O.","Heintz, C."],"key":"Morin2011","id":"Morin2011","bibbaseid":"morin-heintz-thespecificityofhumancommunicationeludessemiotictheories-2011","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["cultural evolution","communication"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://christophe.heintz.free.fr/Heintz.bib","dataSources":["bMm86oDW73ZYqhGFm","vE4DKri2KHdAXk9wS","5n3P9djZZFF2hAcjF","WF2F3rt8MKdmf9zwW"],"keywords":["cultural evolution","communication"],"search_terms":["specificity","human","communication","eludes","semiotic","theories","morin","heintz"],"title":"The Specificity of Human Communication Eludes Semiotic Theories","year":2011}